16 4

Here's where I annoy a lot of my atheist and agnostic friends...

Why is legislation the main (in many cases the ONLY focus) for decreasing gun issues?

I've thought about this quite a bit and I can't think of any other problem where nearly all of our efforts fixate on restrictions for responsible people. Areas like alcohol prohibition and the drug war that also fixated on restrictions haven't been successful.

lol before anyone makes all the normal assumptions about me, I don't like the NRA. Although it needs to be noted the evil NRA is still the biggest proponent of gun safety, training and insurance in the USA.

I think we can significantly decrease gun injuries and deaths without major restrictions for responsible people.

I think a mix of formal and informal interventions would be best for gun issues-that's what we strive for on other issues like unwanted pregnancy, drunk driving, work safety...

BTW some politicians even admit they DO NOT WANT answers for abortion, guns or immigration bc those are hot button cash cows for candidates and party 🙂

educatedredneck 7 May 15
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


A major point of clarification, I specifically stated I believe a mix of formal and informal interventions are best for nearly all problems. Formal interventions aren't always legislation, but that's an adequate rough approximation for this discussion.

I definitely support some legislation and regulation for guns while opposing other laws.

My major criticism is why is restrictive legislation the main or even only focus for gun violence?

Everything from unwanted pregnancy, drugs, pedestrian safety, drunk driving, texting and driving, workplace safety...we have laws but we also push education and training. Yet for all the hubris and time the USA has spent debating gun violence we almost never discuss education, training, PSA...

I really think we'll finally make progress on gun violence when we finally start focusing on informal interventions like I've mentioned here to increase gun safety.


Obviously we have to come up with a description of the weapons we want banned. Can't call them by name or the manufacturers will just change the names of the weapons. It's a evolving description ; Military style semi-auto rifle using high velocity rounds and has a detachable magazine over 5 rounds.

MikeFlora Level 7 May 18, 2018

How is a "military style" weapon unique from hunting rifles? Most weapons had some design input from the military or were patterned after weapons used in the miltary.

Also what's a "high velocity round". The article from the radiologist comparing rigle ammo to handgun ammo is very popular for gun control advocates, but ignores the fact that nearly all rifle ammo is higher velocity than pistol ammo. A 22LR has more velocity than a 44 magnum.

We can ban high cap mags, just like with any intervention on any issue, I'd like to see solid analysis on the efficacy. If the CBA is solid, I'd support that but right now there's just too much rigidity on both sides so IMO pushing for rational, factual discourse and analysis is essential.

@educatedredneck I told you it is evolving description

@MikeFlora OK, well if we're going to ban something, there should be exact definitions

@educatedredneck thank you! And wasn't a musket a military style weapon back in the day?


If someone thinks an assault weapons ban would be highly effective, then please write out exactly how such legislation would read. Also understand gun manufacturers were figuring out work arounds for the 1994 ban before it even passed.

Personally, I think a good standard for any intervention are realistic estimates on the cost, impact and unintended consequences. I know that's time consuming, but our government is an intentionally cumbersome entity. We don't want legislation that is hard to change to be swayed by popular trends or to be passed without serious analysis.

Unfortunately that intent has been skewed so it seems like the only things that get passed are whatever the party in power can drum up enough emotional support for or against. Just a comment on the US system in general, this core issue is what needs to change more than gun violence or any other single issue. Just like marital counseling, a couple who cannot work together cannot be together.


Canada did it several decades ago. I'm sure if the US looked at other countries like NZ, Canada, etc. they could also adopt similar strategies which target all causative factors of gun control. Unfortunately all politicians don't want to fix the problem, they just want to milk it for all it's worth.

Lancer Level 7 May 16, 2018

Totally agree politicians on BOTH sides just want to milk many issues. Trent Lott and Tom Daschle co-wrote a book where they acknowledged many don't want efficacy on gun violence or abortion bc those issues are cash cows for both parties.

They're great talking points during election campaigns.


Regulations are only responsible when it follows your attitude
Recall that there are many regulations used for car safety including licensing, testing, etc.

Gripster31 Level 5 May 16, 2018

I think I agree, although my main point that regulations aren't our only focus for other things is still very appropriate.

Again, I'm not against all regulations. I've mentioned several laws I'd support. I'm against tunnel vision and group think for problem solving with any issue bc the agenda becomes more important than being effective


Unless you've posted other things with a far different tone, I don't see Mike asking you to leave. He has asked on other occasions to politely respond to any differences, & some of your points deserve thought & calm answers. I personally believe that some legislation/restrictions are necessary just to get certain types of weapons off the streets. Along with certain ammo & mods. I despise the NRA, but not all its members. Tho in my, "if I were king of the Universe" mind I would like to see all guns unable to fire on another human, I don't live in a fantasy world & don't expect to rid the country of all guns. I respect responsible hunters & gun owners & don't expect them to conform to my lifestyle. I do think we have an epidemic that needs an answer, & sooner rather than later.

phxbillcee Level 9 May 16, 2018

Someone else asked me to leave the group. They're now just saying they don't want to engage me, I'll stay in this group as long as it seems productive or others aren't asking me to leave.

I despise the NRA-ILA. Despite how so many demonize the NRA, they're still the biggest proponent for gun safety and training in the USA....which seems kinda odd doesn't it? our government pushes better guidelines and safety for all kinds of things from sex, driving even tripping at work...but the evil NRA is our biggest proponents for gun insurance, safety and training??? Granted the NRA probably gets over 20% of their overall funding from pushing those things and they're clearly biased.

MANY people who criticize the NRA don't have any idea how much they push insurance, safety and training. I've talked with dozens who don't even know enough to distinguish between the NRA-IL and the regular NRA.


There are many issues to address which are just as important as gun control...

Seeker55 Level 8 May 15, 2018

And they have been plaguing the human race for a very very long time. The tendency in this country is to try to do a quick fix without really looking to the root of the problem. I agree gun control is not going to fix the problem completely. I do believe that it is a very important part of the solution

@Kojaksmom I am with you, it is an important piece of a larger puzzle. But it is also a bandaid on a gaping wound.


Because legislation is the only way to make people compliant.

MikeFlora Level 7 May 15, 2018

I totally agree.

Untrue, people generally obey social mores, traditions, general safety guidelines and many other things.

BTW, even legislation doesn't actually make everyone compliant, it merely allows the state to formally consequence those who are not compliant.


What formal interventions do you propose?

DJVJ311 Level 7 May 15, 2018

I'm waiting to hear back from the admin who asked me to leave....I won't discuss this much on this page until an admin approves it.

Although it seems like your question ties right into my biggest question, why is legislation the main or ONLY type of intervention people think about for gun issues?

I didn't go into significant detail above, but I did stress a mix of formal and informal interventions would be best and your only question is what formal interventions I propose...ie reinforcing the idea that formal interventions are the only way we think about decreasing gun issues.

Hey, if you want a nuanced, and likely prolonged discussion feel free to IM me. I'm not familiar enough with this site yet but if there's a good way to have a new discussion elsewhere, I'm open to that as well.


For as long as individual A tries to rule what individual B should do regarding merchandise X, the controversy will continue forever. The biggest falacy of all is for individual B to say to individual A that if you don't like merchandise X then don't buy it, but then B is now guilty of what A was trying to enforce on individual B !!!! Too complicated?? Exactly, it is complicated

IamNobody Level 8 May 15, 2018

I don't like it when someone buys merchandise X which turns out to be Saran gas or a bazooka. Are you saying I should not buy X but you or anyone else should be able to?

@dare2dream No, clearly what I am saying is that no matter what is said or discussed in an open debate, the controversy will go on and on forever. Sure enough, that's exactly what you are trying to do right now so you just have proved my point. Go ahead and be individual A or B, it's your choice and I have nothing to do with it.


What you are saying is quite vague. Details?

nvrnuff Level 8 May 15, 2018

I assume it was an admin who asked me to leave this group if I don't support gun control. You can see my reply below, but I'm not entirely opposed to gun control.

My central question is why is legislation nearly our entire focus, especially when we seem to know that's not a good approach for other problems.

If I do leave the group and you want to have a respectful discussion, please IM me


Without some kind of restrictions we will have what we now have. Chaos and death.

JackPedigo Level 9 May 15, 2018

Agreed, I'm not against all restrictions on guns or even against responsible people. I dislike tunnel vision in any problem solving on any issue.

Right now it seems like restrictions for responsible people are the main or even only solutions the USA talks about.

I think this is true for any problem, but if your problem solving falls to group think and all your solutions are very similar to each other then you're missing all types of solutions and likely efficacy.

@educatedredneck We have restrictions for responsible people to drive and a lot of other activities. Why, the hell not for weapons that can and do kill people!!! What do you suggest as alternatives??

@JackPedigo The response you replied to I stated, "I'm not against all restrictions on guns or even responsible people" My first post here stated I want effective interventions on gun violence. Yet your response seems to entirely ignore my comments.

If you want a genuine discussion, please address what I'm saying. Granted I'm being a little vague, but that's intentional bc I don't have all the answers. I just know the dynamic we've built where one side keeps fixating on legislation as the main or only solution and the other side dismisses the problems is not working for anyone. I'm being vague bc I want people to have a new type of conversation and NOT keep addressing the same points. So again, please address what I'm actually saying.

I will specifically address something you've said, sure we have legal restrictions for responsible people. We consequence generally responsible people who do irresponsible things like drive too fast. We don't tend to make restrictions generally responsible behavior. Most, but not all, proposed gun legislaiton is geared towards restrictions on behavior that's not inherently irresponsible. It's not irresponsible to own an AR or a semi-automatic weapon. It is irresponsible for people convicted of domestic violence to have guns and we have extremely strict laws on guns for people with any domestic violence conviction. Unfortunatley we just don't enforce those laws well.


I only see high ammo.magazines and the parts that enable guns to blow out bullets faster than a bubble machine is needed
The whole mental health screening and documenting is useless. I am a social worker who sees really disturbed people thst have no history on mental health system. To me it seems hate mixed with instability is something under the radar. Someone making threat on FB to kill people should be committed but often aren't. It seems often there are no signs. To me the division in the country and egging on at Trump rallies is bazare and creates this violent dilution of making America great again.

gigihein Level 8 May 15, 2018

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." ~ Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President of the NRA.

I think it is a fallacy that there are good guys with guns and bad guys with guns; responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. The truth is not that black and white. The truth is we all have some good and bad tendencies. When the good guy with a gun gets ticked off he just might use the gun. I hope its only a pistol and not a high powered assault weapon.

dare2dream Level 7 May 15, 2018

I can't keep track of my car keys..so I would be bad with a gun


Regarding "restrictions for responsible people": Shouldn't even "responsible people" be restricted from fully automatic machine guns? How about bazookas? Rockets. Helicopter gunships? It has been decided, a long time ago, that these things should be banned from the general population.

So, where should the line be drawn between weapons for self defense/hunting and weapons of mass destruction?

I think assault weapons designed for war and mass murder should go on the bazooka side. Just my opinion.

dare2dream Level 7 May 15, 2018

I'm losing track of all the reply threads sorry, sure responsible people have restrictions but most problems we focus on restricting irresponsible people and consequencing irresponsible actions.

The focus for gun violence continues to be on restricting responsible people overall.

We barely crack down on bad actors who are FFL, guns in the black market, legal, civil or social consequences for people who don't store guns properly or other good gun safety.


If anyone wants a serious, respectful discussion I'm totally up to it. I know a quite a bit about guns and behavior modification. I know a lot of extremely responsible "gun nuts", lol see my name here.

I'll try to respond respectfully if people are snide, but mostly I just ignore those people after a few comments.

Many of my friends are hunters..not my cup of tea, but we have other things in common. I live in a rural area where hunting is part of life and people are responsible with guns. I respect others view as we all think and behave based on our personal lens we see through.
I would like to know more and hear more from those more knowledgable about guns and solutions.

@SallyMc I'm not opposed to gun control. My question is why is legislation the ONLY solution?

As I said above I think a mix of formal and informal interventions would be best...although if nobody wants to have those discussions then I'll leave the group wt complaint.

@educatedredneck : You have not behaved like a troll so I think you have the right to stay. Asking questions or even or simply having another opinion only promotes discussion. With everyone thinking the same, we end up only nodding at each other.

@educatedredneck : Exactly what "formal and informal interventions" are you suggesting?

I think most people here are not against " formal and informal interventions". I think most people here are for sensible solutions to curbing mass murder and gun violence.

@educatedredneck Just so you know, not all here, even proponents of some form of gun control, feel the same as certain others do. I feel you have been respectful & reasoned, if not always in agreement with my particular views, & I personally welcome you here!

@SallyMc I wasn't intending on dodging questions. I was busy last night and this morning with plumbing issues. Water is dangerous and takes precedence over an online discussion which should take months or years if we're focused on efficacy.

I apologize for not getting back to you and I did see your last comment last night but didn't have the time to respond fully. I may have responded to other's comments after you posted, but I saw your comment as I got the call about plumbing.

I acknowledge my wording wasn't great with "I'm not opposed to gun control", so I'll clarify now.

I support some, but not all proposed gun control legislation. My main goal for any issue is efficacy, although I think maximizing rights in every area is also a good. goal. In the gun violence discussion, I define efficacy as measurably fewer gun deaths and injuries. I definitely support banning bump stocks, gimmick guns made to look like cell phones, bans on people with a history of violence....

Efficacy and maximizing rights are frequently in conflict, although IMO less if we look at dynamic factors and long-term 2nd and 3rd order effects.

If efficacy is the main goal, fixating on one type of intervention and effectively ignoring everything else won't give us the best results.

The fact you're (SallyMc) making negative assumptions about my motivations without direct clarifciation tells me at the very least on this thread you're not following effective dispute resolution. I have no idea who is an administrator or even if this site has admins. If people want me to stay and have a respectful discussion, I'll happily oblige but only if it is productive and that means people need to allow for oddities in life-I couldn't have predicted a tenant would have multiple minor plumbing issues. That also means people strive to never make negative assumptions without clarification and people do strive for factual dialectic while acknowledging what they think they absolutely know v what the assume.

I included the part about making it clear where people acknowledge what they think are solid facts intentionally. I doubt the efficacy of every assault weapons ban I've seen for the USA. That doesn't mean an assault weapons ban written by smart people with significant criticism and input from all sides wouldn't be effective. I'm just saying I haven't seen a specific proposal that I think would work. IMO effective discourse rarely happens on political issues. I've even said it some politicians, Lott, Daschle and Bayh, have said politicians don't want effective resolution to some issues. I'd love to have efficacy focused discussions on many issues.

In addition to doing a lot of preventative maintenance for plumbing today, I have a big conference tomorrow and may not check this site again until Saturday.

If there are administrators on this site, please weigh in if we should continue the discussion or if I should leave the group.

I'll do one more post now, if I have time I'll check back in later tonight but I have to prep for tomorrow. Hopefully the plumbing is ok 🙂

@dare2dream Thanks for your kind words, I have no idea who is an admin here. If people want me to stay, I'll stay and strive for a factual, efficacy focused discussion while acknowledging my own biases and lack of information where appropriate

What formal and informal interventions do I propose are phenomenal question!

Unfortunately, I can't really lay out a thorough plan of formal and informal interventions-YET.

I think the USA is so split on every political issue, effective discourse is almost impossible.

I've been asking variants of, why is restrictive legislation the only answer for gun issues? question for over four years and so far nobody has really answered that questions. Some people acknowledge I have a good point but quickly run right back to ONLY pushing legislative solutions.

My goal in asking that question is to change the dynamic of the discussion, initially in a few small groups.

I do have theories on what might be good interventions, especially informal interventions. I think it's odd the federal and state government sponsor safety ads, training...for many issues from parenting, drunk driving, seatbelts, pedestrain safety, teen pregnancy (I could list a dozen mroe) but the main proponent for gun safety and training is the evil NRA.

Why don't we sponsor safe gun storage? Keeping guns away from children or unsafe friends and relatives? We seem to know some areas have a higher density of guns per capita but fewer gun issues. Why not study good and bad areas to push for better standards? If you look hard enough, you'll find a few small, local informal pushes but they're rare, poorly funded and tend to be temporary.

I listed a couple of formal interventions above, but another would be expanding the existing gun registry (many pro and con people don't know there is an existing registry, or there's legislaiton against a federal registry) to better track the origin of guns used in crime.

We also don't try to crack down on bad actors in the FFL or guns on the black market in any significant way. That absolutey blows my mind!

@SallyMc My last word to you will be just an apology. I really didn't "dodge" your question as that implies intent. I wasn't clear nor did I communicate effectively, so I do apologize for that.

It seems others here are choosing to interact with me and not asking me to leave, I'll stay as long as it seems productive or if someone official asks me to leave

Write Comment